IMHO the US is losing even more credibility

[Wired For Sound]

"A self loathing creature.."? LOL
No, my conflict is not with myself. My conflict is with the foreign policies of those developed countries that abuse impoverished nations for profit.
d

Are you suggesting that impoverished nations are impoverished *because* of the developed nations? I bet you see it as a zero sum game: Developed nations take "their" natural resources and leave them with nothing in return. Is this true? Do you see the profit motive as an exploitive evil? How does one get out of poverty without it? I'm looking forward to your answers.

 

[train]

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Don't set your expectations too high . From what I've seen D can only sing the one note .

 

[*d*]

Wired
There is a big difference between utilizing fair trade and oppressing a nation for imperialistic ambitions. Human's are much more successful in cooperative endeavors then they are feeding off each other. Simply because the oppressed turn violent.

d

 

[hapkido]

D what is your profession and undergrad/postgrad This should explain your belief system and what shapes your view point. I'm would think that your statements albeit valid in the idealistic perfect world sense but unrealistic/unpractical executionally. There is always an agenda behind one's action.

 

[hapkido]

Africa should feel fortunate to get any kind of funding especially when amerca's budget deficit is mounting dangerously high.

 

[onthebottom]

What?

Wired
There is a big difference between utilizing fair trade and oppressing a nation for imperialistic ambitions. Human's are much more successful in cooperative endeavors then they are feeding off each other. Simply because the oppressed turn violent.

d

Cooperative? I think you underestimate the power of the market economy where everyone IS "feeding off each other". Are you still in school?

OTB

 

[DenWa]

*Disclaimer to the cool Canadians - don't take offense...

I find it laughable the way *d and others like him try so very fucking hard to paint the picture that Canada has played as big a role in the world political scene as the U.S...it's kind of like a little kid jumping up and down with his arm raised, trying to be noticed. I would never take away the accomplishments of the Canadian people, but if you listen to some on this board, you would think Canada single-handedly won WWII...Canada has no leadership role in this world. None. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the United States of America has done more good for more countries than any other country on this planet. But even when we do something good, we're accused of alterior motives and evil-doing...Of course we're going to try to do things in our best interest. If we give 15 Billion Dollars to Africa for AIDS, and the trade-off is that it's our medicine they buy - well good for us. They still have 15 Billion Dollars, and why shouldn't we work it that way? Should we give away all that money just to see some country who hasn't done shit to help reap the benefits of a new pharmaceutical market? Hell no. You act as if the U.S. is the only nation that acts in its own self-interest. Well, that's bull. Every nation does...it's just that Canada seems to have an identity crisis, and isn't even sure what their own self-interest is.

Knibb High Football Rules!!!

 

[Berlin]

[size=+1] Avril Lavigne rocks !!! [/size]

 

[90's sc vet]

The white house passed a bill yesterday authorizing the first installment of $2 billion to the African AIDS fund. They also expect to give only $2 billion again next year.

There is also the problem of the high cost of patented AIDS/HIV drugs offered by the major American pharmaceutical companies. Patented drugs for AIDS therapy can cost up to $10000/person per year.

(even though there are over 4 million new HIV cases in South Africa each year) if generic equivalent drugs could be used.

d

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/news_updates_archive/2003/feb6_03/bush_aids.html

IIRC, the $10,000 cost per person per year figure is out of date, the drugs being planned for deployment cost about $300 per year per person, as the above URL discusses. That is the cost of the raw materials for the drugs plus the production cost using African or Indian production facilities, pretty much as low as you can get.

http://health_info.nmh.org/HealthNews/reuters/NewsStory0711200314.htm

That url gives a more complete story of what happened to the $3B/year funding. Basically, the US finds itself with a large deficit because of the aftermath of 9/11 (FYI, first tax cut cheques were sent out last week) and Congress didn't like funding a brand new program. Take note that Bush is going against the wishes of the Republican Party in the Congress.

What I find interesting is the huge elephant in the living room that no one wants to talk about. The spread of AIDS in Africa, and actually anywhere, can be instantly halted if people in high risk catgories practiced safe sex. No one would have to talk about spending billions of dollars per year. Free subsidized condoms have been available in Third World countries for about a decade, mostly funded by the US.

The other thing I find interesting is to compare the economy of any location on earth to the equivalent time in US history. I think the result would show that on average, most places on earth are roughly equivalent to the US from about the late 1800's to around 1920. Electricity is available, hospitals are around, there is a banking system, etc etc.

The US grew out of that historical period. In fact, obviously the US grew out of every historical period from the agricultural peasant era to the present day pretty much on their own. Foreign trade and large capital transfers were very small until after WW2.

The question no one wants to consider is that if the US could do it, why can't every other Third World country do the same? Why put the entire load of uplifting so many capable African people on the shoulders of the US?

About 2 billion people in China, India and most of S.E. Asia made huge progress over the past 20 years. Europe came back from WW2 with less total foreign aid from the US Marshall Plan than Africa has received over the last 40 years or so. What is holding Africa back?

 

[hapkido]

mmmmmm can u say the same for the natives in north america?

 

[submissivedave]

Re: Re: IMHO the US is losing even more credibility

The question no one wants to consider is that if the US could do it, why can't every other Third World country do the same? Why put the entire load of uplifting so many capable African people on the shoulders of the US?

About 2 billion people in China, India and most of S.E. Asia made huge progress over the past 20 years. Europe came back from WW2 with less total foreign aid from the US Marshall Plan than Africa has received over the last 40 years or so. What is holding Africa back?

Well, first of all, althought the Americans were only mere "farmers and peasants" after their independence, one should not forget the infrastructure the British colonialist left behind. And when I say infrastructure I don't just mean physical capital, but other more abstract things such as ideas and concepts. Yes, the Americans rebelled against the Brits, yet, American politics can still be considered to be a derivative of the British system, not to mention that the Declaration of Independence is highly influenced by Locke, who was a Brit. Oh yeah ... Washington was a Brit too.

And because the Brits were arguably one of the most powerful nations on earth, thier infrastructures would be second to none.

Another thing to consider is that the States had slaves leaving the "aristocrats" time to write and philosophize and do other shit that could not be done. And yeah, the States had a Civil War and shit, but war is good for the economy as well as the advent of science.
Yes, there are many other countries that have "suffered" the same faith as the Americans such as colonialism and internal wars but have not achieve what the Americans have achieved. Interestingly enough, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and a large majority of other British colonies have flourished. So from a economical and development/modernization standpoint, every where the English have gone, good things have happened.

Now, on to East Asia ...

It is interesting to note that South Korea and Taiwan who were both former Japanese colonies have indeed benefited from Japanese modernization when they were there. Yes, the people suffered and so did national pride, but when the Japanese retreated, they left a very modern and advanced infrastructure intact in both Korea and Taiwan as well as many other northern Chinese cities, most notably the city of Dalian.

Just to be a bit controvertial, Belgium Congo suffered one of the most devastating atrocities ever known to the African continent, yet, the Belgiums also gave the Congolese their first hospital, their first shcool, their first postal service and their first railway.

So yeah, colonialism can be good for the economy and development where a more advanced countries brings in their know-hows, but it is bad for the colonized people because they are being treat unfairly by their colonial masters. Not only being unfair, but the colonialist treat colonized people like shit ...
So I guess the buildings of schools, hospitals etc. are really only thier to maintain the health and working capacity of the colonized ...

So why is modern Africa so fuck?

Corruption and that the Africans are divided on what to do and which ideologies to embrace. Furthermore, when the colonialists left, African countries were created by Europeans who just drew a line on a may saying this part is so and so and this part is so and so and hence the mass genocide in Africa just like certain events in Pakistan and India.

Of course, I am only being simplistic and generalizing so please feel free to blast me away ...

But the above is just my humble and unworthy opinion ...

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: Re: Re: IMHO the US is losing even more credibility

Well, first of all, althought the Americans were only mere "farmers and peasants" after their independence, one should not forget the infrastructure the British colonialist left behind.

So from a economical and development/modernization standpoint, every where the English have gone, good things have happened.

Now, on to East Asia ...

It is interesting to note that South Korea and Taiwan who were both former Japanese colonies have indeed benefited from Japanese modernization when they were there.

So why is modern Africa so fuck?

Corruption and that the Africans are divided on what to do and which ideologies to embrace. Furthermore, when the colonialists left, African countries were created by Europeans who just drew a line on a may saying this part is so and so and this part is so and so and hence the mass genocide in Africa just like certain events in Pakistan and India.

I agree that the British left behind a legacy in North America. But you have to remember that the Africans currently have the US , Europe, Asia, South America, the Internet, vastly more intellectual, physical and financial capital, basically a much larger world to draw upon than the US did in the 1700's.

So I think we're in agreement. The US had resources from Europe in 1776, Africa has resource help from a worldwide economy probably 1000 or 10,000 times larger than the US did.

Interestingly, when you roll back in history, you could ask a similar question about Britain, the foundation that you mention the US grew on top of after 1776. Where did they get their growth from? France, Russia, all the European powers grew from a base economy much smaller than Africa has to draw on and they had no one to lean on. But they were successful nonetheless.

I read an interesting note about colonial powers, that generally speaking, the one thing you could complain about Britain was that they didn't stay long enough in places like Iraq, Jordan and Syria.

It's true that the colonial powers drew maps in the middle east and Africa that were designed to keep the local populations divided. However, that was also true about North America, India, SE Asia and China. Those countries managed to escape that political trap, yet Africa and much of the middle east has not.

To get back to the question *d* posed, in an interesting case of "the dog didn't bark", the growth of HIV in South America, India, even China, is about the same as in Africa. But you don't read about a US HIV program for those countries, only Africa. Why is that?

Much of Europe was devastated after WW2, but about ten years afterwards new political institutions were in place (replacing totalitarian regimes) and their economies were booming.

In fact, I would argue that the political distance Germany and Japan travelled, moving from corrupt totalitarian dictatorships prior to 1940 to fully functioning democracies by 1955, was no greater than what must be done in Africa.

Europe, much of SE Asia, India, all of South America, democracies have been established and no one is insisting that the US pay for HIV treatment in those regions.

The conclusion I'm moving towards is that virtually every other region has got its house in order. So what is it about Africa that people like *d* feel that it's necessary to complain that the US isn't doing enough for Africans? Why isn't he complaining about the rest of the world subsidizing HIV treatments in Africa? And why isn't *d* complaining about the lack of progress in Africa compared to the rest of the world? Pretty much everybody else has done it in spite of exactly facing the same problems that Africa faces.

 

[90's sc vet]

mmmmmm can u say the same for the natives in north america?

Well, yes, I would say the same about North American natives as well.

I remember watching a CBC documentary where the host basically told a group of aborgines that their best chance of success would be for them to be assimilated into the rest of Canadian society. They weren't happy to hear that.

 

[Baron]

They just had a thing on PBS the other night on Aids in South Africa. I didn't watch the whole thing but I cought part of it. They were in a whore house interviewing about 20 girls and patrons. They asked them if they used protection and if they were worried about the risks or about getting sick and death. The women all said they try to get the men to use condoms but if they don't want to it's like "oh well" and do it anyways, and yes there very poor and need the money. The men were all military ( in uniform ) and they all said they didn't like condoms they like flesh on flesh, and when asked about being worried they all pretty much didn't care or shrugged it off, and some even straight out said they didn't give a shit about sickness or death. It's almost like if they can't see it they don't believe it. This was just about 20 people but if that's the general attitude over there, no wonder there dropping like flies.

 

[90's sc vet]

They just had a thing on PBS the other night on Aids in South Africa. I didn't watch the whole thing but I cought part of it.

I read another story about HIV in Africa, that in some countries the men insist on dry intercourse to simulate the tightness of a virgin. Some prostitutes in those countries actually use astringents in their vaginas to make them extra dry and tight. You can imagine how the extra abrasions would enhance the spread of HIV.

The strange reality is that the $15B the US is going to spend is effectively to allow Africans to do what probably no one who reads TERB would do, have unprotected sex with strangers.

Each American will be paying approximately the same amount of money as the annual budget for NASA, or about 1.5 times the cost of building the Shuttle follow on, or about the same as the total money invested by venture capitalists in the US last year, all so that Africans can ignore the simplest safety methods to avoid becoming infected with HIV. I can see why the Congress wasn't very happy with this new program.

The unpleasant reality is that HIV is the same as smokers getting lung cancer, it's a disease that victims essentially volunteer to get. Don't want to get lung cancer? Don't smoke. Don't want to get HIV? Don't have unsafe sex.

If you don't like tobacco companies for the product they make, logically, you also have to equally dislike any HIV positive person who has unprotected sex. There must be lots of those people around since, according to *d*,there are an additional 4 million HIV positive cases in Africa.

 

[onthebottom]

90s SC Vet

Good points, the NASA line really got me. Like smoking it's the innocents and public health cost that I worry about. I don't care if smokers get cancer but I do care about the people affected by second hand smoke and the cost to the health care system of trying to save them from their self inflicted disease. To me the Aids equivalent is a child with Aids, who did not choose to have someone who has made bad decisions give birth to them. Helping these children is worth Billions to me. Can't wait to see what conspiracy *d* dreams up for this.

OTB

 

[HornyTime]

The thing I wonder is if providing the anti-viral AIDS "cocktail" would actually spread more AIDS. This is why I ponder this:

Mr. A gets AIDS from unprotected sex. He's given the cocktail to prolong his life. During his prolonged life due to the drugs he has more unprotected sex and spreads AIDS further.

Call me the devil if you want, but I think this could happen.

---------------------

Interestingly enough, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and a large majority of other British colonies have flourished...

Each year Toronto's Indian (from India; not native) celebrate the independance of India from Britian in 1947. I always find this celebration deeply ironic given these people left India for Canada (a UK colony that didn't kick the British out.) I think if the British hadn't been kicked out, India today would be an economic powerhouse like China. India's greatest assets seem to be the rail infrastructure, English langauge, legal system, and education system - all left behind by the British. India could have been amazingly developed by now.

-----------------------
OK, flame away! That's what I think, but I won't spend my life debating it.

 

[90's sc vet]

Re: 90s SC Vet

To me the Aids equivalent is a child with Aids, who did not choose to have someone who has made bad decisions give birth to them. Helping these children is worth Billions to me. Can't wait to see what conspiracy *d* dreams up for this.

OTB

You're right about innocents suffering because of HIV. I would expand the victims to children whose parents have died of HIV.

But I guess the overall problem still remains, why is it only Africans are in such a helpless state? Why is it that only the US has the moral responsibility to solve problems that not only are self inflicted, but the victims themselves prevent those problems from being solved?

I remember reading some of the reactions of the first US forces to go to Somalia to distribute food. They expected to find basically empty desert, instead they found lush farmland. It seemed unlikely that they would be giving away flour when it was very apparent that the country should have been self sufficient in food.

I guess that's why I brought up the example of comparing third world economies to the US in the past. The US moved beyond a rudimentary economy in the past. What's the problem in Africa?

To put it harshly, there's no excuse for milllions of Africans to sit around suffering. The rest of the world got organized, threw off corrupt polticians and built economies without the resource base of Africa (Japan, Taiwan, Singapore come to mind).

The Marshall Plan transferred about US$13B to Europe, worth about $90B today. Africa has received about $410B in foreign aid since 1960.

In the roughly fifty years since the end of WW2 everybody else got moving. Should the rest of the world, or the US, have to pay so that Africans can fight among themselves and starve in the midst of a greater resource base than the US or Europe or Asia ever had?

The $15B *d* complains the US won't be spending could be financed by Nigeria alone with their oil revenues, or by the De Beers diamond mines. Why should the US pay when the money is already available within Africa?

Another way of looking at *d*'s complaint about the US is that the $15B he's talking about works out to about $10 per US person per year over five years.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap/AFR

You can see from that chart that most African countries spend more per capita on the military than the proposed US HIV program.

If the African nations were helpless victims of natural disasters that would be one thing. But when you compare Africa to what the rest of the world has done and how the Africans would appear to prefer to spend money on the military while their own population is suffering from HIV, the US HIV African initiative is a tough sell.

 

[gryfin]

Before you start to pillory Africa

Remember that no nation in the world spends as much on the military as the US. Meanwhile, tens of millions of its citizens have no health care. Millions starve every day. Health care is not is a basic right in this land of plenty.

At the same time, over 45 billion dollars will be spent in a military occupation of Iraq for this calendar year alone.

I guess, like Africa, the US would like to spend money on its military rather than its citizens.

 

[Dodger]

In order to lose credibility don't you first have to have it.

The Americans have not won a war since Grenada, now there is an even fight, and they almost lost that due to over confidence and lack of communication between the services.

I don't consider either of the WW as wins for the US as the allies were at least as effective and instrumental. Korea was a loss, Vietnam was a loss, Panama was a loss. Hell even we kicked there butts back in 1812. Being the good souls that we are we gave them back their capital after we walked in and took it.

Personally I hate their "Might is Right" attitude. Wave the flag all you want I have no problem with patriotism but don't go around the world thinking that your sh** don't stink.

I am tired of being mistaken for an American just because I speak North American english